HUD awards $17.8M no-bid contract for M&M bridge services, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,782,427 ($17.8M)

Contractor: Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2010-05-01

End Date: 2010-09-30

Contract Duration: 152 days

Daily Burn Rate: $117.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: RCS FOR M&M BRIDGE CONTRACT TO REPLACE C-ATL-01759 (HARRINGTON, MORAN, BARKSDALE, INC.)

Place of Performance

Location: CHICAGO, COOK County, ILLINOIS, 60601

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $17.8 million to HARRINGTON, MORAN, BARKSDALE, INC. for work described as: RCS FOR M&M BRIDGE CONTRACT TO REPLACE C-ATL-01759 (HARRINGTON, MORAN, BARKSDALE, INC.) Key points: 1. The contract's value, while significant, lacks competitive benchmarking to confirm optimal pricing. 2. Awarded as 'NOT COMPETED', the procurement method limits price discovery and potential savings. 3. The short duration (152 days) suggests a bridge or interim service need, but the cost per day is high. 4. The contractor, Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc., has a substantial contract history with the government. 5. The absence of a Public Service Code (PSC) or Product Service Code (PSC) makes direct comparison difficult. 6. The contract's purpose as a 'bridge' implies a temporary solution, warranting scrutiny of its necessity and cost.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $17.8 million for a 152-day period equates to approximately $117,000 per day. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to ascertain if this represents a fair market price. Comparing this to similar bridge contracts for residential property management services is challenging due to the lack of detailed service descriptions and the 'not competed' status. The high daily rate suggests potential overpayment or a highly specialized, urgent need that was not publicly disclosed.

Cost Per Unit: Approximately $117,000 per day (calculated as $17,782,427.05 / 152 days). This figure is high for standard property management services and lacks a clear market benchmark due to the contract's nature.

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a 'NOT COMPETED' procurement method, indicating that only one source was solicited or considered. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple vendors submitting proposals. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price reductions and service innovations that often arise from a robust bidding environment. The justification for this sole-source award is not provided in the data.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these services due to the absence of competitive pressure. The government missed an opportunity to secure potentially lower prices and better terms through a competitive solicitation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the residents of the properties managed under this contract, who will continue to receive property management services. The services delivered include residential property management, crucial for maintaining housing facilities. The geographic impact is specified as Illinois, indicating that the contract's services are localized to this state. The contract supports the workforce employed by Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc. in Illinois for property management roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about price reasonableness and potential for inflated costs.
The high daily cost per diem warrants further investigation into the specific services provided and their necessity.
The 'bridge' nature of the contract suggests a potential gap in planning or an urgent, unforeseen need that may not have been optimally addressed through sole-sourcing.

Positive Signals

The contract ensures continuity of essential residential property management services.
The award to an established contractor may indicate a known entity capable of performing the required services.
The fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.

Sector Analysis

The residential property management sector is a significant part of the broader real estate services industry. This contract falls under the administrative and support services category within federal procurement. While specific benchmarks for 'bridge' contracts in this niche are scarce, general property management costs can vary widely based on property type, size, and location. Federal spending in this area often supports public housing or government-owned properties, ensuring operational stability and resident services.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false) and did not involve small business subcontracting (sb: false). Therefore, this award has no direct positive impact on the small business ecosystem. The full value of the contract was awarded to a single entity, Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc., without provisions for engaging small businesses as partners or subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to monitor performance and ensure compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award and the lack of publicly available justification for not competing the contract.

Related Government Programs

Public Housing Agency (PHA) Operations
Government Property Management Services
Residential Real Estate Services
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification
High daily cost per diem
Short contract duration for a significant value
Lack of competitive bidding limits price discovery

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $17.8 million to HARRINGTON, MORAN, BARKSDALE, INC.. RCS FOR M&M BRIDGE CONTRACT TO REPLACE C-ATL-01759 (HARRINGTON, MORAN, BARKSDALE, INC.)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARRINGTON, MORAN, BARKSDALE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (Department of Housing and Urban Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-01. End: 2010-09-30.

What is the track record of Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with HUD?

Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc. has a significant history of federal contracting. While the provided data snippet focuses on a single $17.8 million contract, a deeper analysis would involve examining their entire federal contract portfolio. This includes the number of contracts awarded, their total value, agencies served (especially HUD), contract types (firm-fixed-price, cost-plus, etc.), and performance history (e.g., any past performance issues, awards, or terminations). Understanding their experience with similar 'bridge' contracts or emergency procurements would also be crucial. A review of their past performance ratings, if available through systems like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), would offer insights into their reliability and capability.

How does the per-unit cost or daily rate of this contract compare to similar government contracts for residential property management?

The daily rate of approximately $117,000 for this contract is notably high and lacks immediate comparability without more specific service details. Standard residential property management fees are typically a percentage of rental income or a fixed fee per unit. For a contract valued at $17.8 million over 152 days, this suggests either a very large portfolio of properties, highly complex management requirements, or an emergency/urgent service provision. Benchmarking against other federal contracts would require identifying procurements with similar scopes (e.g., managing distressed properties, emergency housing, or large-scale residential facilities) and analyzing their daily or per-unit costs. The 'not competed' status further complicates direct comparison, as competitive bids often drive down costs.

What are the specific risks associated with awarding a large contract on a sole-source basis for residential property management?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competition. Without competing offers, the government may overpay for the services rendered. Another risk is reduced innovation and service quality, as the contractor faces less pressure to differentiate themselves. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes dependent on a single provider, making future transitions difficult or costly. Furthermore, the justification for the sole-source award itself needs scrutiny; if it was not truly warranted, it could indicate poor planning or potential impropriety. Finally, the lack of transparency inherent in sole-source procurements can erode public trust and taxpayer confidence.

What does the 'bridge' designation imply about the program's effectiveness or the agency's planning?

The 'bridge' designation typically signifies that this contract is intended as a temporary solution to fill a gap until a more permanent arrangement can be established. This could imply several things about the program or agency's planning: 1) An unforeseen event or emergency necessitated immediate services, bypassing standard procurement timelines. 2) A previous contract ended unexpectedly, or a planned replacement contract is delayed. 3) The agency is testing a new service model or provider before committing to a long-term contract. While necessary in some situations, frequent reliance on 'bridge' contracts can indicate underlying issues with strategic planning, contract management, or resource allocation within the agency, potentially leading to higher costs than planned, long-term solutions.

How has federal spending on residential property management services evolved over time, and does this contract align with historical patterns?

Federal spending on residential property management services can fluctuate based on housing needs, economic conditions, and government initiatives. Historically, such spending might increase during economic downturns (requiring more support for distressed properties) or periods of increased federal housing investment. This specific contract, valued at $17.8 million over approximately five months, represents a significant expenditure. To assess alignment with historical patterns, one would need to analyze aggregate federal spending data for NAICS code 531311 (Residential Property Managers) and similar codes over several fiscal years. Comparing the total annual spending, average contract values, and the prevalence of sole-source versus competitive awards would provide context. Without broader historical data, it's difficult to definitively state if this single contract aligns with typical spending patterns.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing › Activities Related to Real Estate › Residential Property Managers

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: R-ATL-01952

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2000 E LAMAR BLVD STE 710, ARLINGTON, TX, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,782,427

Exercised Options: $17,782,427

Current Obligation: $17,782,427

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline